Total Posts:207|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Darwin & Huxley: A Thread for Skeptical1

PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
My contention from another thread:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor. His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me

I would be interested in having a civilised discussion with you (and others) about some of the points you've raised here. However, since the OPer has raised complaints about the thread being hijacked from its original focus, I'm reluctant to do so here. I'd like to suggest you could open a new thread with the comments in your most recent post as a starting point. Up for it? - Skeptical1.


My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.

Thomas Henry Huxley, (born May 4, 1825, Ealing, Middlesex, England"died June 29, 1895, Eastbourne, Sussex) English biologist, educator, and advocate of agnosticism (he coined the word). Huxley"s vigorous public support of Charles Darwin"s evolutionary naturalism earned him the nickname "Darwin"s bulldog," while his organizational efforts, public lectures, and writing helped elevate the place of science in modern society....
Nonetheless, he saw Darwin's naturalistic (i.e., nonmiraculous) approach as a valuable aid in his campaign to build an independent scientific elite unfettered by the constraints of the old order. Therefore, rather than shy away from the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, Huxley played them up, using Darwin's Origin of Species as a "Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism." Unlike some contemporaries (such as Saint George Jackson Mivart) who sought a reconciliation between science and theology, he framed the debate over Creation and evolution in black-and-white, either/or terms and was unforgiving of colleagues who straddled the fence...
Huxley carried the standard of scientific naturalism and evolution on a number of battlefields. He challenged the notion of supernatural creation, informing his democratic artisans that humans had risen from animals'a lowly-ancestor-bright-future image that appealed to the downtrodden"and that Darwin's Nature was a book open for all to read, rather than the prerogative of priests. He plunged headlong into the inflammatory issue of human ancestry; Darwin avoided it, but Huxley made it his specialty. In 1861 he denied that human and ape brains differ significantly, sparking a raging dispute with Richard Owen that brought human evolution to public attention...
Huxley's controversial positions in the 1860s and "70s won the support of an increasing number of his contemporaries, while his research established him as one of the leading scientists of his era...
He did not fight alone. With the Kew Gardens botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the physicist John Tyndall, and other former outsiders, Huxley formed the X-Club in 1864 to advance science. Within a decade they were parceling out Royal Society posts. Their mouthpiece was the Reader in which Huxley, answering Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli's criticism of Darwinism, notoriously claimed that science would achieve "domination over the whole realm of the intellect" and Nature (founded in 1869 by Huxley's team).


https://www.britannica.com...

https://www.google.ca...

Is this something you wanted to dispute or am I missing the objections you held to my previous post on the other thread?

Peter
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:30:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM, PGA wrote:
My contention from another thread:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor. His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me

I would be interested in having a civilised discussion with you (and others) about some of the points you've raised here. However, since the OPer has raised complaints about the thread being hijacked from its original focus, I'm reluctant to do so here. I'd like to suggest you could open a new thread with the comments in your most recent post as a starting point. Up for it? - Skeptical1.


My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.

Thomas Henry Huxley, (born May 4, 1825, Ealing, Middlesex, England"died June 29, 1895, Eastbourne, Sussex) English biologist, educator, and advocate of agnosticism (he coined the word). Huxley"s vigorous public support of Charles Darwin"s evolutionary naturalism earned him the nickname "Darwin"s bulldog," while his organizational efforts, public lectures, and writing helped elevate the place of science in modern society....
Nonetheless, he saw Darwin's naturalistic (i.e., nonmiraculous) approach as a valuable aid in his campaign to build an independent scientific elite unfettered by the constraints of the old order. Therefore, rather than shy away from the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, Huxley played them up, using Darwin's Origin of Species as a "Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism." Unlike some contemporaries (such as Saint George Jackson Mivart) who sought a reconciliation between science and theology, he framed the debate over Creation and evolution in black-and-white, either/or terms and was unforgiving of colleagues who straddled the fence...
Huxley carried the standard of scientific naturalism and evolution on a number of battlefields. He challenged the notion of supernatural creation, informing his democratic artisans that humans had risen from animals'a lowly-ancestor-bright-future image that appealed to the downtrodden"and that Darwin's Nature was a book open for all to read, rather than the prerogative of priests. He plunged headlong into the inflammatory issue of human ancestry; Darwin avoided it, but Huxley made it his specialty. In 1861 he denied that human and ape brains differ significantly, sparking a raging dispute with Richard Owen that brought human evolution to public attention...
Huxley's controversial positions in the 1860s and "70s won the support of an increasing number of his contemporaries, while his research established him as one of the leading scientists of his era...
He did not fight alone. With the Kew Gardens botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the physicist John Tyndall, and other former outsiders, Huxley formed the X-Club in 1864 to advance science. Within a decade they were parceling out Royal Society posts. Their mouthpiece was the Reader in which Huxley, answering Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli's criticism of Darwinism, notoriously claimed that science would achieve "domination over the whole realm of the intellect" and Nature (founded in 1869 by Huxley's team).


https://www.britannica.com...

https://www.google.ca...

Is this something you wanted to dispute or am I missing the objections you held to my previous post on the other thread?


Peter

No, I think that's a good way to kick things off. I have a couple of ideas as to how I'd like to respond, but I also want to do due diligence first in checking a few things. Also, I'm currently working on uni assignments, and unfortunately they take precedence today - so what I'm saying is - don't wait up.... but I look forward to giving you an answer soon.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:39:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:30:20 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM, PGA wrote:
My contention from another thread:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor. His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me

I would be interested in having a civilised discussion with you (and others) about some of the points you've raised here. However, since the OPer has raised complaints about the thread being hijacked from its original focus, I'm reluctant to do so here. I'd like to suggest you could open a new thread with the comments in your most recent post as a starting point. Up for it? - Skeptical1.


My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.

Thomas Henry Huxley, (born May 4, 1825, Ealing, Middlesex, England"died June 29, 1895, Eastbourne, Sussex) English biologist, educator, and advocate of agnosticism (he coined the word). Huxley"s vigorous public support of Charles Darwin"s evolutionary naturalism earned him the nickname "Darwin"s bulldog," while his organizational efforts, public lectures, and writing helped elevate the place of science in modern society....
Nonetheless, he saw Darwin's naturalistic (i.e., nonmiraculous) approach as a valuable aid in his campaign to build an independent scientific elite unfettered by the constraints of the old order. Therefore, rather than shy away from the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, Huxley played them up, using Darwin's Origin of Species as a "Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism." Unlike some contemporaries (such as Saint George Jackson Mivart) who sought a reconciliation between science and theology, he framed the debate over Creation and evolution in black-and-white, either/or terms and was unforgiving of colleagues who straddled the fence...
Huxley carried the standard of scientific naturalism and evolution on a number of battlefields. He challenged the notion of supernatural creation, informing his democratic artisans that humans had risen from animals'a lowly-ancestor-bright-future image that appealed to the downtrodden"and that Darwin's Nature was a book open for all to read, rather than the prerogative of priests. He plunged headlong into the inflammatory issue of human ancestry; Darwin avoided it, but Huxley made it his specialty. In 1861 he denied that human and ape brains differ significantly, sparking a raging dispute with Richard Owen that brought human evolution to public attention...
Huxley's controversial positions in the 1860s and "70s won the support of an increasing number of his contemporaries, while his research established him as one of the leading scientists of his era...
He did not fight alone. With the Kew Gardens botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the physicist John Tyndall, and other former outsiders, Huxley formed the X-Club in 1864 to advance science. Within a decade they were parceling out Royal Society posts. Their mouthpiece was the Reader in which Huxley, answering Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli's criticism of Darwinism, notoriously claimed that science would achieve "domination over the whole realm of the intellect" and Nature (founded in 1869 by Huxley's team).


https://www.britannica.com...

https://www.google.ca...

Is this something you wanted to dispute or am I missing the objections you held to my previous post on the other thread?


Peter

No, I think that's a good way to kick things off. I have a couple of ideas as to how I'd like to respond, but I also want to do due diligence first in checking a few things. Also, I'm currently working on uni assignments, and unfortunately they take precedence today - so what I'm saying is - don't wait up.... but I look forward to giving you an answer soon.

Thank you!

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:24:30 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.

Science was a replacement for God. He was no longer needed in the minds of those who disliked or opposed the biblical message. I look upon it as the break the intellectual elite and the rebellious needed to be done with God for good. They could become the measure of all things, their own gods, governed by the imaginations of their own minds.

Peter
Silly_Billy
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:36:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 1:24:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.

Science was a replacement for God. He was no longer needed in the minds of those who disliked or opposed the biblical message. I look upon it as the break the intellectual elite and the rebellious needed to be done with God for good. They could become the measure of all things, their own gods, governed by the imaginations of their own minds.

Peter

The majority of the scientists from 100 years ago and earlier who lay the foundations of the science that we have today were religious and were not at all trying to undermine religion. Again, Darwin is a very good example. He believed in God but he was also pragmatic enough to understand that the world is build on foundations that can be scientifically explored and explained and when he found that the answers that science gave him did not add up with the answers provided by religion, he did not ignore the science as some people would have. Ultimately, i think that he believed that God had given man the ability to think and reason and that to deny the results of that ability, namely science, would be to deny that gift and deny God.
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 3:20:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:39:23 AM, PGA wrote:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor. His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me


My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.


To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out. As Dobzhansky notes: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Darwin's genius is demonstrated in the fact that every piece of new understanding our modern technology brings us confirms, rather than contradicts, his findings.

If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", what does that make the good Bishop Samuel Wilberforce? From all accounts of their encounter at Oxford, it was the Bishop who was full of bluff and bluster, although it would appear that his patronising and condescending attitude didn't win him the day in terms of the debate. "The bulldog", in contrast, appears to have been most measured in his response, and consequently, won over most of those present.

I think the reference to Richard Owen in the extract you produced is quite telling. If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", then Owen must have been "Wilberforce's Dinosaur". It was Owen who tutored Wilberforce for their debate. It was also Owen who set out to conclusively prove that apes and humans could not possibly be related. Of three arguments he presented, the main one was that all the apes other than humans lacked a hippocampus minor, thus proving humans were special. Unfortunately for him, it was later shown after dissections were performed on sixteen varieties of primates, that not only did other primates have this part of the brain, but in fact humans had the smallest example of any. Both of his other arguments have also been thoroughly refuted.

It was also somewhat of an embarrassment for Owen that an anonymous article which was received and published in the Edinburgh Review, which extolled Owen's work and severely criticised Darwin's turned out to be penned by none other than Richard Owen.

I'd also like to address the picture you appear to be trying to paint of a cosy, warm and fuzzy relationship which existed between religion and science up until Darwin "upset the applecart". You refer to the fact that until then most scientists were god-fearing individuals, which I won't dispute.

In response to this, I'd like to point out that it was indeed the case that most people (in western society at least) were people of faith, or at least claimed to be (and still do, as a matter of fact). However, up until the age of reason, it could be quite dangerous not to be seen as a person of faith - or even as a person of the wrong faith. The church had a nasty habit of getting rid of people who "upset the applecart". That could perhaps be a contributing factor to the "religiosity" of the times, however I'll concede that most scientists up until Darwin's time were also religious.

The interesting thing is that, although it would appear scientists throughout the ages have not had a problem with religion (possibly excluding fairly recent times), religion has always had a problem with scientists. Hypatia, Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo - there's a fairly impressive list of people who were either persecuted or killed by the church because of their pursuit of knowledge.

There is also, in my opinion, a marked difference between the Christian scientists of the 16th-19th centuries, and the ones of today who currently receive the most attention. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and company saw science as the process of discovery and understanding. When they observed something which challenged the teachings of the church - the dogmas of religion, they steadfastly upheld what their observations and logic told them. Somehow, they managed to hold on to their religious convictions in spite of their scientific discoveries. The teaching among "Christian scientists" of today appears to be to oppose anything which might contravene the teachings of established religion, and in instances where there is a conflict, the scientific observations are assumed to be wrong. This is not the approach taken by eminent Christian scientists of the past.

For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 3:30:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 1:36:49 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 1:24:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.

Science was a replacement for God. He was no longer needed in the minds of those who disliked or opposed the biblical message. I look upon it as the break the intellectual elite and the rebellious needed to be done with God for good. They could become the measure of all things, their own gods, governed by the imaginations of their own minds.

Peter

The majority of the scientists from 100 years ago and earlier who lay the foundations of the science that we have today were religious and were not at all trying to undermine religion.

Many were but they were looking at the world through the Darwinian paradigm. The focus was off of looking to God for the answers. Now man became the measure.

Again, Darwin is a very good example. He believed in God but he was also pragmatic enough to understand that the world is build on foundations that can be scientifically explored and explained and when he found that the answers that science gave him did not add up with the answers provided by religion, he did not ignore the science as some people would have. Ultimately, i think that he believed that God had given man the ability to think and reason and that to deny the results of that ability, namely science, would be to deny that gift and deny God.

Well, his upbringing certainly involved religion. He was training to be an Anglican theologian but with the death of his daughter and the influence of Charle Lyell he put that aside for good.

A vast incomprehensible past, undocumented by any witnesses, allowed Darwin and his followers to fill it with their own theories about the origin and history life. This is the opposite of the Bible, which sets out a clearly documented record of the origin and history of life that has the authority of a witness who was there. Lyell's work gave Darwin the option of rejecting that authority and substituting it with his own, and Darwin took up the opportunity, as have all his and Lyell's followers, who want their thoughts and actions to be freed from the authority of the Creator.

Years later Darwin later confirmed that Lyell had indeed undermined the authority of Scripture. In 1873 Darwin wrote to his son George:

"Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge etc far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise" (Letter to George H Darwin, 21 Oct 1873)

By shaking faith in the Deluge, i.e. Noah's flood, Darwin, Lyell and their present day followers were, and are, not just rejecting God's power as Creator, they reject His power and authority as judge.

Ultimately, Darwin's grief over his daughter"s death was just one more step on an already well established path away from God.


http://askjohnmackay.com...

Lyell was a lawyer and he knew that no separation exists between religion or philosophy, and the way people study the world around them, i.e. science. By advising his followers to reject and replace Moses, Lyell was actually establishing an alternative world history where the authority of the God of Moses over the real world of rocks, fossils and living things, was ultimately rejected....

Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that this is what actually happened to Charles Darwin, one of Lyell's most devoted disciples. It was only after Darwin took on Lyell's world view of vast geologic ages that he could work out his own theory of evolutionary biology. In his book On the Origin of Species, which sets out his theory of evolution, Darwin describes his complete dependence on Lyell's work.

"He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume." Darwin, 1859, Origin, Ch IX, p282

A vast incomprehensible past, undocumented by any witnesses, allowed Darwin to fill it with his own theories about the origin of life, and of new and different life forms....


http://askjohnmackay.com...

So, history can give a glimpse of how worldviews come into being and what fuels them and how they build. Understanding the great influences in a person's life can give an understanding of what helps them shape the way they look at the world.

Darwin was not a Christian. His early life was influenced by Christianity but his later life adopted a naturalistic framework for life.

Peter
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 4:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 3:30:18 AM, PGA wrote:
By shaking faith in the Deluge, i.e. Noah's flood, Darwin, Lyell and their present day followers were, and are, not just rejecting God's power as Creator, they reject His power and authority as judge.
The mythical flood never happened, get over it.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 3:20:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:39:23 AM, PGA wrote:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor. His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me
The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.


To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out. As Dobzhansky notes: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Darwin's genius is demonstrated in the fact that every piece of new understanding our modern technology brings us confirms, rather than contradicts, his findings.

Reading of Dobzhansky I would not expect anything else from him. He was weaned in a system of evolutionary thought. As for Darwin understanding the structure of the cell better than his modern day opponents think he did does not wash. He had no idea of the complexity of a cell and the information contained within, nor the role of agency involved.

If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", what does that make the good Bishop Samuel Wilberforce? From all accounts of their encounter at Oxford, it was the Bishop who was full of bluff and bluster, although it would appear that his patronising and condescending attitude didn't win him the day in terms of the debate. "The bulldog", in contrast, appears to have been most measured in his response, and consequently, won over most of those present.

I'll let you decide on Wilberforce.

A measured response does not necessary equate to a correct response. I watch the salesmanship of Obama and think that he is charismatic, but I don't believe what he is selling. He is trying to protect his legacy, and that legacy is nothing to brag about IMO. He wants to continue his liberal agenda and morality without a backbone, and it's ruining your country (You are American, right?).

I think the reference to Richard Owen in the extract you produced is quite telling. If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", then Owen must have been "Wilberforce's Dinosaur".

Well, he was the one who coined the term "dinosaur."

It was Owen who tutored Wilberforce for their debate. It was also Owen who set out to conclusively prove that apes and humans could not possibly be related. Of three arguments he presented, the main one was that all the apes other than humans lacked a hippocampus minor, thus proving humans were special. Unfortunately for him, it was later shown after dissections were performed on sixteen varieties of primates, that not only did other primates have this part of the brain, but in fact humans had the smallest example of any. Both of his other arguments have also been thoroughly refuted.

So what?

The similarity between kinds of mammals does not necessarily mean the one evolved from the other. I think that is faulty thinking. We share the same planet so it is not strange to think that we would have commonality. Besides, evolution can propose transitions between species but has anyone ever witnessed one? It is debatable. A finch is still a finch. There is a design built within a kind so that it can survive in different environments. I don't dispute that. I actually agree with it. I just see a boundary on how far a kind can adapt.

I'd also like to address the picture you appear to be trying to paint of a cosy, warm and fuzzy relationship which existed between religion and science up until Darwin "upset the applecart". You refer to the fact that until then most scientists were god-fearing individuals, which I won't dispute.

It has been well documented. The dichotomy between faith and reason was created during the Enlightenment and Age of Reason according to some, and I agree. People seem to think religion operates on a different plane, an emotional one, and science on a logical one. I disagree.

In response to this, I'd like to point out that it was indeed the case that most people (in western society at least) were people of faith, or at least claimed to be (and still do, as a matter of fact). However, up until the age of reason, it could be quite dangerous not to be seen as a person of faith - or even as a person of the wrong faith. The church had a nasty habit of getting rid of people who "upset the applecart". That could perhaps be a contributing factor to the "religiosity" of the times, however I'll concede that most scientists up until Darwin's time were also religious.

Please note, what is done in the name of Christianity does not always reflect its teachings.

The interesting thing is that, although it would appear scientists throughout the ages have not had a problem with religion (possibly excluding fairly recent times), religion has always had a problem with scientists. Hypatia, Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo - there's a fairly impressive list of people who were either persecuted or killed by the church because of their pursuit of knowledge.

It depends on what you mean by science. Origins are not repeatable events. We can't observe them in a lab. We interpret the evidence. It does not come already interpreted.

There is also, in my opinion, a marked difference between the Christian scientists of the 16th-19th centuries, and the ones of today who currently receive the most attention. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and company saw science as the process of discovery and understanding. When they observed something which challenged the teachings of the church - the dogmas of religion, they steadfastly upheld what their observations and logic told them. Somehow, they managed to hold on to their religious convictions in spite of their scientific discoveries. The teaching among "Christian scientists" of today appears to be to oppose anything which might contravene the teachings of established religion, and in instances where there is a conflict, the scientific observations are assumed to be wrong. This is not the approach taken by eminent Christian scientists of the past.

Somehow?

Here again, you are creating the dichotomy between science and faith that I spoke of above. These men opposed wrong thinking regardless of where it came from. They still looked to God as the source and reason for their understanding.

For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

You are over generalizing if you believe all Christians think this way. My faith opposes Darwinism. It does not oppose science.

Peter
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 6:06:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM, PGA wrote:
My contention from another thread:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell.

You never showed how complexity disproves evolution. We have seen multi-cellularity evolve in bacteria, and also have seen bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. Evolution can evolve complex abilities.

Also the original theory was still in its infancy and today we have more information to make a much more complete and accurate picture of what happened.

He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor.

Darwin also used evidence from the fossil record as well. The evolution he saw explained the similar species in different layers in the fossil record, and the general order of the fossil record between these similar species formed a transition from simple to complex.He also used structural similarities across animals especially in the bones as evidence that they were modified through evolution.

We have far more fossil evidence now with many transitional fossils, genetic evidence, and vestigial organs.

His ideas, pushed by Huxley and others, hijacked science into a secular worldview as the dominant worldview. Academics influenced by it filter down their beliefs to the masses as if they are absolutely right. The intellectual elite influenced by Darwinism were and are regarded as a gatekeep of society. - Me

I would be interested in having a civilised discussion with you (and others) about some of the points you've raised here. However, since the OPer has raised complaints about the thread being hijacked from its original focus, I'm reluctant to do so here. I'd like to suggest you could open a new thread with the comments in your most recent post as a starting point. Up for it? - Skeptical1.


My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.

The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.

Thomas Henry Huxley, (born May 4, 1825, Ealing, Middlesex, England"died June 29, 1895, Eastbourne, Sussex) English biologist, educator, and advocate of agnosticism (he coined the word). Huxley"s vigorous public support of Charles Darwin"s evolutionary naturalism earned him the nickname "Darwin"s bulldog," while his organizational efforts, public lectures, and writing helped elevate the place of science in modern society....
Nonetheless, he saw Darwin's naturalistic (i.e., nonmiraculous) approach as a valuable aid in his campaign to build an independent scientific elite unfettered by the constraints of the old order. Therefore, rather than shy away from the controversial aspects of evolutionary theory, Huxley played them up, using Darwin's Origin of Species as a "Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism." Unlike some contemporaries (such as Saint George Jackson Mivart) who sought a reconciliation between science and theology, he framed the debate over Creation and evolution in black-and-white, either/or terms and was unforgiving of colleagues who straddled the fence...
Huxley carried the standard of scientific naturalism and evolution on a number of battlefields. He challenged the notion of supernatural creation, informing his democratic artisans that humans had risen from animals'a lowly-ancestor-bright-future image that appealed to the downtrodden"and that Darwin's Nature was a book open for all to read, rather than the prerogative of priests. He plunged headlong into the inflammatory issue of human ancestry; Darwin avoided it, but Huxley made it his specialty. In 1861 he denied that human and ape brains differ significantly, sparking a raging dispute with Richard Owen that brought human evolution to public attention...
Huxley's controversial positions in the 1860s and "70s won the support of an increasing number of his contemporaries, while his research established him as one of the leading scientists of his era...

Creationists denied that humans and apes were at all similar and while Huxley was not entirely right he did start a good conversation on the differences and similarities between humans and apes.

He did not fight alone. With the Kew Gardens botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker, the philosopher Herbert Spencer, the physicist John Tyndall, and other former outsiders, Huxley formed the X-Club in 1864 to advance science. Within a decade they were parceling out Royal Society posts. Their mouthpiece was the Reader in which Huxley, answering Conservative leader Benjamin Disraeli's criticism of Darwinism, notoriously claimed that science would achieve "domination over the whole realm of the intellect" and Nature (founded in 1869 by Huxley's team).

https://www.britannica.com...

https://www.google.ca...

Is this something you wanted to dispute or am I missing the objections you held to my previous post on the other thread?


Peter
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 6:07:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out. As Dobzhansky notes: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Darwin's genius is demonstrated in the fact that every piece of new understanding our modern technology brings us confirms, rather than contradicts, his findings.

Reading of Dobzhansky I would not expect anything else from him. He was weaned in a system of evolutionary thought. As for Darwin understanding the structure of the cell better than his modern day opponents think he did does not wash. He had no idea of the complexity of a cell and the information contained within, nor the role of agency involved.

Please state your source for Darwin's lack of understanding that cells are complex, as it contradicts my understanding. That is not to say he didn't get the mechanics of it wrong - that was not disputed. Also, please define specifically what you mean by "agency".

If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", what does that make the good Bishop Samuel Wilberforce? From all accounts of their encounter at Oxford, it was the Bishop who was full of bluff and bluster, although it would appear that his patronising and condescending attitude didn't win him the day in terms of the debate. "The bulldog", in contrast, appears to have been most measured in his response, and consequently, won over most of those present.

I'll let you decide on Wilberforce.

A measured response does not necessary equate to a correct response. I watch the salesmanship of Obama and think that he is charismatic, but I don't believe what he is selling. He is trying to protect his legacy, and that legacy is nothing to brag about IMO. He wants to continue his liberal agenda and morality without a backbone, and it's ruining your country (You are American, right?).

No I'm not, and I'm not interested in debating about him.

I think the reference to Richard Owen in the extract you produced is quite telling. If Huxley was "Darwin's Bulldog", then Owen must have been "Wilberforce's Dinosaur".

Well, he was the one who coined the term "dinosaur."

It was Owen who tutored Wilberforce for their debate. It was also Owen who set out to conclusively prove that apes and humans could not possibly be related. Of three arguments he presented, the main one was that all the apes other than humans lacked a hippocampus minor, thus proving humans were special. Unfortunately for him, it was later shown after dissections were performed on sixteen varieties of primates, that not only did other primates have this part of the brain, but in fact humans had the smallest example of any. Both of his other arguments have also been thoroughly refuted.

So what?

"So what" is that, as in every case, the supposed objections of those who deny evolution do not stack up. And when Owen's alleged "proofs" turned false, he resorted to subterfuge. I'll just let that train of thought rest there for now. You are the one who introduced him into the discussion as if Darwin and Huxley had committed some grievous sin in crossing him.

The similarity between kinds of mammals does not necessarily mean the one evolved from the other. I think that is faulty thinking. We share the same planet so it is not strange to think that we would have commonality. Besides, evolution can propose transitions between species but has anyone ever witnessed one? It is debatable. A finch is still a finch. There is a design built within a kind so that it can survive in different environments. I don't dispute that. I actually agree with it. I just see a boundary on how far a kind can adapt.

I will come back to this, as I'm fast running out of allowed words.

I'd also like to address the picture you appear to be trying to paint of a cosy, warm and fuzzy relationship which existed between religion and science up until Darwin "upset the applecart". You refer to the fact that until then most scientists were god-fearing individuals, which I won't dispute.

It has been well documented. The dichotomy between faith and reason was created during the Enlightenment and Age of Reason according to some, and I agree. People seem to think religion operates on a different plane, an emotional one, and science on a logical one. I disagree.

For now, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

In response to this, I'd like to point out that it was indeed the case that most people (in western society at least) were people of faith, or at least claimed to be (and still do, as a matter of fact). However, up until the age of reason, it could be quite dangerous not to be seen as a person of faith - or even as a person of the wrong faith. The church had a nasty habit of getting rid of people who "upset the applecart". That could perhaps be a contributing factor to the "religiosity" of the times, however I'll concede that most scientists up until Darwin's time were also religious.

Please note, what is done in the name of Christianity does not always reflect its teachings.

The interesting thing is that, although it would appear scientists throughout the ages have not had a problem with religion (possibly excluding fairly recent times), religion has always had a problem with scientists. Hypatia, Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo - there's a fairly impressive list of people who were either persecuted or killed by the church because of their pursuit of knowledge.

It depends on what you mean by science. Origins are not repeatable events. We can't observe them in a lab. We interpret the evidence. It does not come already interpreted.

None of the above were evolutionists. Religion still had a problem with them.

There is also, in my opinion, a marked difference between the Christian scientists of the 16th-19th centuries, and the ones of today who currently receive the most attention. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and company saw science as the process of discovery and understanding. When they observed something which challenged the teachings of the church - the dogmas of religion, they steadfastly upheld what their observations and logic told them. Somehow, they managed to hold on to their religious convictions in spite of their scientific discoveries. The teaching among "Christian scientists" of today appears to be to oppose anything which might contravene the teachings of established religion, and in instances where there is a conflict, the scientific observations are assumed to be wrong. This is not the approach taken by eminent Christian scientists of the past.

Somehow?

Here again, you are creating the dichotomy between science and faith that I spoke of above. These men opposed wrong thinking regardless of where it came from. They still looked to God as the source and reason for their understanding.

So if they opposed wrong thinking, why did religion oppose them?


For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

I will have to come back to the rest, run out of words.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 6:43:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 6:06:58 AM, distraff wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM, PGA wrote:
My contention from another thread:

Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell.

You never showed how complexity disproves evolution. We have seen multi-cellularity evolve in bacteria, and also have seen bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. Evolution can evolve complex abilities.

How does this something you proposed have agency and intent? How does a blind, indifferent, illogical, non-thinking, random, chance happenstance do these things? You apparently think "it" can.

My solution is that bacteria are designed to function within certain boundaries by God. They can mutate to a certain degree and no further. They are still the bacterium.

How does a complex information system such as DNA come together by random chance happenstance? That is your assumption, not mine.

Also the original theory was still in its infancy and today we have more information to make a much more complete and accurate picture of what happened.

There are many inconsistencies with your theory. Scientists are still trying to work out all the details. When you start within a particular paradigm the idea is to continue to work things out within that paradigm because of what is invested within that paradigm, if at all possible, as long as it is a natural process.

He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor.

Darwin also used evidence from the fossil record as well. The evolution he saw explained the similar species in different layers in the fossil record, and the general order of the fossil record between these similar species formed a transition from simple to complex.He also used structural similarities across animals especially in the bones as evidence that they were modified through evolution.

Similarity, as I explained in another post, does not necessarily mean a traced common ancestor through macro-evolution. It can also mean a common DESIGN so that different kinds can share the same environment.

We have far more fossil evidence now with many transitional fossils, genetic evidence, and vestigial organs.

And fossilization points to catastophic events, not gradual deteriorization.

The evidence is read into the fossil. The evidence is not pre-interpreted.

Can you show me the change between different species happening on earth today? I'm sure you can come up with all kinds of theories and explanations but what do you have that is conclusive?

Creationists denied that humans and apes were at all similar and while Huxley was not entirely right he did start a good conversation on the differences and similarities between humans and apes.

Similarities between different kinds do not necessitate the different kinds coming from a common ancestor. That is what you read into the similarities. It comes from your worldview paradigm, not mine.

Peter
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 7:06:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

The similarity between kinds of mammals does not necessarily mean the one evolved from the other. I think that is faulty thinking. We share the same planet so it is not strange to think that we would have commonality. Besides, evolution can propose transitions between species but has anyone ever witnessed one? It is debatable. A finch is still a finch. There is a design built within a kind so that it can survive in different environments. I don't dispute that. I actually agree with it. I just see a boundary on how far a kind can adapt.

The fossil evidence, genetic evidence and anatomical evidence for species gradually evolving into other species is overwhelming. Otherwise, why do whales have vestigal legs, and you have a vestigal tail?

Evolution from one species to another typically takes far too long for it to be observed by an individual in a single lifetime. Typically, but not always:

American goatsbeard
Apple maggot fly

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

So, yes, speciation has been observed. However it also needs to be emphasised that simply because something happens on a timescale which makes it difficult or impossible for humans to "see it happening in front of their eyes", that is no reason whatsoever to conclude it doesn't happen.

Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the sun, so it's fairly safe to conclude no one has ever actually seen it do so. Do you wish to assert that Pluto does not, in fact, go around the sun? Should we doubt it until someone actually sees it happen?

For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

You are over generalizing if you believe all Christians think this way. My faith opposes Darwinism. It does not oppose science.

I know all Christians do not think that way. Many accept the fact of the origin of life by means of evolution through natural selection. Darwinism is science. It is forming hypotheses based on sytematic observation, measurement, testing, and experimentation. There is no evidence to suggest that Darwin set out with a specific conclusion in mind and adapted/twisted/obscured the facts to meet his required conclusion - any more than did Copernicus or Galileo. All of them based their conclusions on the evidence they found, and all of them have been increasingly vindicated by the progress of time and understanding.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 7:16:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 6:07:43 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out. As Dobzhansky notes: "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Darwin's genius is demonstrated in the fact that every piece of new understanding our modern technology brings us confirms, rather than contradicts, his findings.

Reading of Dobzhansky I would not expect anything else from him. He was weaned in a system of evolutionary thought. As for Darwin understanding the structure of the cell better than his modern day opponents think he did does not wash. He had no idea of the complexity of a cell and the information contained within, nor the role of agency involved.

Please state your source for Darwin's lack of understanding that cells are complex, as it contradicts my understanding. That is not to say he didn't get the mechanics of it wrong - that was not disputed. Also, please define specifically what you mean by "agency".

My source is common sense. Darwin did not have the sophistication that we have developed in examining the cell. He could not have known it was as complex as it was or he would have documented this complexity. He could not examine it to the nth degree like we can with our electron microscopes and high-powered observation tools. He did not identify the complexity of the DNA structure or the multifunctions going on within the cell that we witness and that has been documented in today's world.

A measured response does not necessary equate to a correct response. I watch the salesmanship of Obama and think that he is charismatic, but I don't believe what he is selling. He is trying to protect his legacy, and that legacy is nothing to brag about IMO. He wants to continue his liberal agenda and morality without a backbone, and it's ruining your country (You are American, right?).

No I'm not, and I'm not interested in debating about him.

Just an analogy, bad as it may be.

It was Owen who tutored Wilberforce for their debate. It was also Owen who set out to conclusively prove that apes and humans could not possibly be related. Of three arguments he presented, the main one was that all the apes other than humans lacked a hippocampus minor, thus proving humans were special. Unfortunately for him, it was later shown after dissections were performed on sixteen varieties of primates, that not only did other primates have this part of the brain, but in fact humans had the smallest example of any. Both of his other arguments have also been thoroughly refuted.

So what?

"So what" is that, as in every case, the supposed objections of those who deny evolution do not stack up. And when Owen's alleged "proofs" turned false, he resorted to subterfuge. I'll just let that train of thought rest there for now. You are the one who introduced him into the discussion as if Darwin and Huxley had committed some grievous sin in crossing him.

Both sides were ignorant. It was a budding field. You seem to assume that only your side gets it right. I'm not interested in Owen's proofs. I'm interested in Darwin's for the very reason that I believe he assumed an awful lot that is still assumed today.

The interesting thing is that, although it would appear scientists throughout the ages have not had a problem with religion (possibly excluding fairly recent times), religion has always had a problem with scientists. Hypatia, Bruno, Copernicus, Galileo - there's a fairly impressive list of people who were either persecuted or killed by the church because of their pursuit of knowledge.

It depends on what you mean by science. Origins are not repeatable events. We can't observe them in a lab. We interpret the evidence. It does not come already interpreted.

None of the above were evolutionists. Religion still had a problem with them.

I don't support "religion." I only support the Christian worldview, not everything that can be categorized as a religion. And I don't support every view that comes out of the church and denominationalism. A flat earth is not supported by Scripture even if people reference "the four corners" as support of this view. The four corners is a figurative reference to north, south, east, and west or all over the earth, not just in one spot. There are references in Scripture to the earth's roundness, and those are not to be understood in the same manner that we do today, for we know the earth is not perfectly round. They did not have the knowledge of the earth we do today. It was a rough evaluation.

There is also, in my opinion, a marked difference between the Christian scientists of the 16th-19th centuries, and the ones of today who currently receive the most attention. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and company saw science as the process of discovery and understanding. When they observed something which challenged the teachings of the church - the dogmas of religion, they steadfastly upheld what their observations and logic told them. Somehow, they managed to hold on to their religious convictions in spite of their scientific discoveries. The teaching among "Christian scientists" of today appears to be to oppose anything which might contravene the teachings of established religion, and in instances where there is a conflict, the scientific observations are assumed to be wrong. This is not the approach taken by eminent Christian scientists of the past.

Somehow?

Here again, you are creating the dichotomy between science and faith that I spoke of above. These men opposed wrong thinking regardless of where it came from. They still looked to God as the source and reason for their understanding.

So if they opposed wrong thinking, why did religion oppose them?

I think that is obvious. Because "religion" did not have the same depth of knowledge that Galileo, Copernicus or Newton had and they falsely interpreted Scripture or did not reason properly and think God's thoughts after Him. These men of science were beyond their time in their field of expertise and in relation to the common man and his knowledge of science. The clergy lacked the knowledge these men had.

Peter
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 7:46:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 7:16:11 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 6:07:43 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out.

Please state your source for Darwin's lack of understanding that cells are complex, as it contradicts my understanding. That is not to say he didn't get the mechanics of it wrong - that was not disputed. Also, please define specifically what you mean by "agency".

My source is common sense. Darwin did not have the sophistication that we have developed in examining the cell. He could not have known it was as complex as it was or he would have documented this complexity. He could not examine it to the nth degree like we can with our electron microscopes and high-powered observation tools. He did not identify the complexity of the DNA structure or the multifunctions going on within the cell that we witness and that has been documented in today's world.

I agree with every word you have said in this paragraph. He was limited by the technology of the day. That does not mean that he regarded cells as "black-boxes", as Behe (I'm sure you know who that is) and his less-than-scrupulously-honest cohorts have claimed. If you want evidence of that, you can read Darwin's own words, written very late in his life. And the limitations of the time in no way invalidate the principles he discovered, nor has any subsequent discovery invalidated them.

The action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll-bodies.
http://darwin-online.org.uk...


So if they opposed wrong thinking, why did religion oppose them?

I think that is obvious. Because "religion" did not have the same depth of knowledge that Galileo, Copernicus or Newton had and they falsely interpreted Scripture or did not reason properly and think God's thoughts after Him. These men of science were beyond their time in their field of expertise and in relation to the common man and his knowledge of science. The clergy lacked the knowledge these men had.

And it's not possible that just as the Earth isn't flat, and the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, God didn't create all the animals 6,000 years ago in the space of a couple of days?
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 7:51:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 7:06:50 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

The similarity between kinds of mammals does not necessarily mean the one evolved from the other. I think that is faulty thinking. We share the same planet so it is not strange to think that we would have commonality. Besides, evolution can propose transitions between species but has anyone ever witnessed one? It is debatable. A finch is still a finch. There is a design built within a kind so that it can survive in different environments. I don't dispute that. I actually agree with it. I just see a boundary on how far a kind can adapt.

The fossil evidence, genetic evidence and anatomical evidence for species gradually evolving into other species is overwhelming. Otherwise, why do whales have vestigal legs, and you have a vestigal tail?

I will have to refer to someone with more knowledge on this for I have forgotten how this has been addressed.

Evolution from one species to another typically takes far too long for it to be observed by an individual in a single lifetime. Typically, but not always:

American goatsbeard

What did it evolve from? A flower evolving into another flower. How is that a change of kind?

Apple maggot fly

Same again, from what? A fly adapted but it was still a fly. How does that prove macro-evolution?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

So, yes, speciation has been observed. However it also needs to be emphasised that simply because something happens on a timescale which makes it difficult or impossible for humans to "see it happening in front of their eyes", that is no reason whatsoever to conclude it doesn't happen.

Sure there are reasons to conclude that it might not happen. It is assumed that you are interpreting the data correctly since it has never been observed happening. The factors involved or observable now may not have been the factors present when the event or change took place. We do not have all the information available and the data is only as good as the interpretation of it. If you have the wrong interpretation you are wrong.

Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the sun, so it's fairly safe to conclude no one has ever actually seen it do so. Do you wish to assert that Pluto does not, in fact, go around the sun? Should we doubt it until someone actually sees it happen?

It is fairly safe to reason so because we can watch and document its orbital path, travel speed, and other variants.

For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

You are over generalizing if you believe all Christians think this way. My faith opposes Darwinism. It does not oppose science.

I know all Christians do not think that way. Many accept the fact of the origin of life by means of evolution through natural selection.

True, but God's word and a correct interpretation of it is our authority. It plainly says that God made each kind of creature to its own kind, and man separate and unique. It identifies the timeframe for creation, not specifically, but generally.

Darwinism is science. It is forming hypotheses based on sytematic observation, measurement, testing, and experimentation. There is no evidence to suggest that Darwin set out with a specific conclusion in mind and adapted/twisted/obscured the facts to meet his required conclusion - any more than did Copernicus or Galileo. All of them based their conclusions on the evidence they found, and all of them have been increasingly vindicated by the progress of time and understanding.

Darwin certainly had the tools in place for a specific paradigm or worldview - naturalism. He was deeply influenced by Charles Lyell (and others), who, in his own right, had a particular way of viewing the Bible as I documented earlier. His uniformitarianism has been proved wrong.

Darwin saw a lot of observable changes within a kind and reasoned that the particular kind actually evolved from a common ancestor, not just adapted to a point within a kind and no further, as already pointed out in my previous reply.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 8:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 7:46:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 7:16:11 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 6:07:43 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

To say Darwin did not understand the complexity of the cell is similar to, but less accurate than, belittling Galileo because he didn't understand quasars. Did not knowing about things that would not be discovered until long after his time make Galileo wrong? It did not. Neither was Darwin wrong because his knowledge of cells did not have the benefit of 21st Century understanding. He also understood them better than his modern-day opponents try to make out.

Please state your source for Darwin's lack of understanding that cells are complex, as it contradicts my understanding. That is not to say he didn't get the mechanics of it wrong - that was not disputed. Also, please define specifically what you mean by "agency".

My source is common sense. Darwin did not have the sophistication that we have developed in examining the cell. He could not have known it was as complex as it was or he would have documented this complexity. He could not examine it to the nth degree like we can with our electron microscopes and high-powered observation tools. He did not identify the complexity of the DNA structure or the multifunctions going on within the cell that we witness and that has been documented in today's world.

I agree with every word you have said in this paragraph. He was limited by the technology of the day. That does not mean that he regarded cells as "black-boxes", as Behe (I'm sure you know who that is) and his less-than-scrupulously-honest cohorts have claimed. If you want evidence of that, you can read Darwin's own words, written very late in his life. And the limitations of the time in no way invalidate the principles he discovered, nor has any subsequent discovery invalidated them.

The action of carbonate of ammonia on chlorophyll-bodies.
http://darwin-online.org.uk...


So if they opposed wrong thinking, why did religion oppose them?

I think that is obvious. Because "religion" did not have the same depth of knowledge that Galileo, Copernicus or Newton had and they falsely interpreted Scripture or did not reason properly and think God's thoughts after Him. These men of science were beyond their time in their field of expertise and in relation to the common man and his knowledge of science. The clergy lacked the knowledge these men had.

And it's not possible that just as the Earth isn't flat, and the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, God didn't create all the animals 6,000 years ago in the space of a couple of days?

I will check this post and the claims out later. I need some sleep.

Peter
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 9:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 7:51:18 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 7:06:50 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/5/2016 5:32:23 AM, PGA wrote:

The similarity between kinds of mammals does not necessarily mean the one evolved from the other. I think that is faulty thinking. We share the same planet so it is not strange to think that we would have commonality. Besides, evolution can propose transitions between species but has anyone ever witnessed one? It is debatable. A finch is still a finch. There is a design built within a kind so that it can survive in different environments. I don't dispute that. I actually agree with it. I just see a boundary on how far a kind can adapt.

The fossil evidence, genetic evidence and anatomical evidence for species gradually evolving into other species is overwhelming. Otherwise, why do whales have vestigal legs, and you have a vestigal tail?

I will have to refer to someone with more knowledge on this for I have forgotten how this has been addressed.

Evolution from one species to another typically takes far too long for it to be observed by an individual in a single lifetime. Typically, but not always:

American goatsbeard

What did it evolve from? A flower evolving into another flower. How is that a change of kind?

Apple maggot fly

Same again, from what? A fly adapted but it was still a fly. How does that prove macro-evolution?

It was a new species of fly, and it was a new species of plant, as evidenced by the fact that it could no longer reproduce with the species from which it originated.

Flies are not flies, and plants are not plants, any more than humans are humans. There have been at least three species of humans identified (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...), and there are countless species of plants and flies. Now there are more.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

So, yes, speciation has been observed. However it also needs to be emphasised that simply because something happens on a timescale which makes it difficult or impossible for humans to "see it happening in front of their eyes", that is no reason whatsoever to conclude it doesn't happen.

Sure there are reasons to conclude that it might not happen. It is assumed that you are interpreting the data correctly since it has never been observed happening. The factors involved or observable now may not have been the factors present when the event or change took place. We do not have all the information available and the data is only as good as the interpretation of it. If you have the wrong interpretation you are wrong.

Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the sun, so it's fairly safe to conclude no one has ever actually seen it do so. Do you wish to assert that Pluto does not, in fact, go around the sun? Should we doubt it until someone actually sees it happen?

It is fairly safe to reason so because we can watch and document its orbital path, travel speed, and other variants.

And, just as there is strong circumstantial evidence for Pluto orbiting the sun, there is strong circumstantial evidence for evolution. However, while no one has ever seen Pluto complete a solar circuit, people have observed speciation. Therefore, there is more reason to believe in evolution than the orbit of Pluto.

For religion to blame science for the animosity which exists from time to time between the two seems to me to be wrong - I think it is more that the church has always opposed science as it feels its authority is threatened, and it is in danger of disappearing in what Neil Degrasse Tyson calls "an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

You are over generalizing if you believe all Christians think this way. My faith opposes Darwinism. It does not oppose science.

I know all Christians do not think that way. Many accept the fact of the origin of life by means of evolution through natural selection.

True, but God's word and a correct interpretation of it is our authority. It plainly says that God made each kind of creature to its own kind, and man separate and unique. It identifies the timeframe for creation, not specifically, but generally.

Darwinism is science. It is forming hypotheses based on sytematic observation, measurement, testing, and experimentation. There is no evidence to suggest that Darwin set out with a specific conclusion in mind and adapted/twisted/obscured the facts to meet his required conclusion - any more than did Copernicus or Galileo. All of them based their conclusions on the evidence they found, and all of them have been increasingly vindicated by the progress of time and understanding.

Darwin certainly had the tools in place for a specific paradigm or worldview - naturalism. He was deeply influenced by Charles Lyell (and others), who, in his own right, had a particular way of viewing the Bible as I documented earlier. His uniformitarianism has been proved wrong.

Darwin saw a lot of observable changes within a kind and reasoned that the particular kind actually evolved from a common ancestor, not just adapted to a point within a kind and no further, as already pointed out in my previous reply.

Darwin saw observable changes between species as well, in the fossil records. The massive increase in fossil records available since his time have done nothing but confirm his conclusions.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 9:47:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:20:12 AM, PGA wrote:

: Science was tainted by Darwinism. He did not understand the complexity of the cell. He thought that adoption within the same kind proved everything evolved from a common ancestor.

As well as making a cynical observation (tainted), I think you are making an incorrect assumption here, or should I say, inference, that evolution did not occur between species. There is no such conclusion in Darwin's work based solely on "adoption within the same kind".

My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

The founders of modern science, who were, for the most part, God-faring, tried to discover the reason for everything in the light of God. That started to shift with the Age of Reason but Darwin and his watchdog Huxley toppled the apple cart to this new mindset. Science was catapulted over to this new paradigm.


: The result is that the paradigm we now live in and focus on looks at science through the eyes of secularism. Any worldview that opposes it is ridiculed.

Certainly, Darwin was (partly) responsible for shifting science away from a religious worldview however such a shift was inevitable anyway with rapidly accelerating advances in technology.

Science is completely oblivious to religion since there is nothing about religion that science has discovered.
And since science is the best and clearly the definitive tool for discovering and proving existence, any allusion to creation can be quite rightly dismissed.

You must be dreaming if you think that anyone with a reasonable intellect is going to be fooled by dressing up an age old (and long since debunked) argument about evolution only within species.

I'll give you a little heads-up here. The latest way of trying to poke holes in an already irrefutably proven scientific fact is the "intervention" theory.

So, instead of insulting the intelligence with a screed of pseudo-eloquence, how about getting a bit more up to speed and amaze everyone with what science you have managed to distort to justify your ridiculous, self-centered beliefs?

Let's see what you know about cell structure.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 10:46:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I think PGA over emphasises Darwinism as changing the relationship between science and religion. As has been pointed out Darwinism comes after many similar clashes going back to at least Galileo and Copernicus. There has been an uneasy tension between religion and science for hundred of years.

Darwin did not redefine science. What Darwin did was to convicingly show for the first time that evolution occurs within the already well established paradigm of natural science, by which I mean the action of ordinary (ie 'natural') forces and the properties of ordinary matter operating according to strict rule of cause and effect.

The religious establishment had no problem with naturalistic explanations of, say, rainbows or the rusting of iron nails. The problems it had with Copernicus, Galileo et al had been smoothed over, but Darwin's naturalistic explanation of life itself could not be ignored and had to be resisted, triggering a turf war, of which this thread is a very small battle!
Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:40:45 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 10:46:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think PGA over emphasises Darwinism as changing the relationship between science and religion. As has been pointed out Darwinism comes after many similar clashes going back to at least Galileo and Copernicus. There has been an uneasy tension between religion and science for hundred of years.

Darwin did not redefine science. What Darwin did was to convicingly show for the first time that evolution occurs within the already well established paradigm of natural science, by which I mean the action of ordinary (ie 'natural') forces and the properties of ordinary matter operating according to strict rule of cause and effect.

The religious establishment had no problem with naturalistic explanations of, say, rainbows or the rusting of iron nails. The problems it had with Copernicus, Galileo et al had been smoothed over, but Darwin's naturalistic explanation of life itself could not be ignored and had to be resisted, triggering a turf war, of which this thread is a very small battle!

I think you've hit the rusty nail on the head. As galling as it must have been to have to admit that they'd got it wrong for so long about the sun and the stars, and the earth's place in the heavens, when it came down to how we got here it suddenly got personal. And perhaps there was nothing so special about us.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:30:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 10:46:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think PGA over emphasises Darwinism as changing the relationship between science and religion. As has been pointed out Darwinism comes after many similar clashes going back to at least Galileo and Copernicus. There has been an uneasy tension between religion and science for hundred of years.

Darwin did not redefine science. What Darwin did was to convicingly show for the first time that evolution occurs within the already well established paradigm of natural science, by which I mean the action of ordinary (ie 'natural') forces and the properties of ordinary matter operating according to strict rule of cause and effect.

The religious establishment had no problem with naturalistic explanations of, say, rainbows or the rusting of iron nails. The problems it had with Copernicus, Galileo et al had been smoothed over, but Darwin's naturalistic explanation of life itself could not be ignored and had to be resisted, triggering a turf war, of which this thread is a very small battle!

I think you have clearly set the record straight there.

As with any war of words, it is the party on the backfoot, having no evidence for their cause whose only defence is to squawk loud and continually cry foul. What else can they do, except perhaps, as with this OT, dress their loud squawks and cries with meaningless rhetoric to try and make it look like an intelligent argument?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 12:34:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 10:46:37 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I think PGA over emphasises Darwinism as changing the relationship between science and religion. As has been pointed out Darwinism comes after many similar clashes going back to at least Galileo and Copernicus. There has been an uneasy tension between religion and science for hundred of years.

Darwin did not redefine science. What Darwin did was to convicingly show for the first time that evolution occurs within the already well established paradigm of natural science, by which I mean the action of ordinary (ie 'natural') forces and the properties of ordinary matter operating according to strict rule of cause and effect.

The religious establishment had no problem with naturalistic explanations of, say, rainbows or the rusting of iron nails. The problems it had with Copernicus, Galileo et al had been smoothed over, but Darwin's naturalistic explanation of life itself could not be ignored and had to be resisted, triggering a turf war, of which this thread is a very small battle!

It is unfortunate really, instead of adapting to the truths of the world by embracing evolution as a part of religion, relgion chose instead to distance itself from those truths which has put it on a path of ultimate self-destruction unless it still manages to adapt itself. The irony is is that evolution does not at all discount the existence of God but by taking the stance that religion has, God will end up being discounted.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 1:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 3:30:18 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 1:36:49 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 1:24:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.

Science was a replacement for God. He was no longer needed in the minds of those who disliked or opposed the biblical message. I look upon it as the break the intellectual elite and the rebellious needed to be done with God for good. They could become the measure of all things, their own gods, governed by the imaginations of their own minds.

Peter

The majority of the scientists from 100 years ago and earlier who lay the foundations of the science that we have today were religious and were not at all trying to undermine religion.

Many were but they were looking at the world through the Darwinian paradigm. The focus was off of looking to God for the answers. Now man became the measure.

Again, Darwin is a very good example. He believed in God but he was also pragmatic enough to understand that the world is build on foundations that can be scientifically explored and explained and when he found that the answers that science gave him did not add up with the answers provided by religion, he did not ignore the science as some people would have. Ultimately, i think that he believed that God had given man the ability to think and reason and that to deny the results of that ability, namely science, would be to deny that gift and deny God.

Well, his upbringing certainly involved religion. He was training to be an Anglican theologian but with the death of his daughter and the influence of Charle Lyell he put that aside for good.

A vast incomprehensible past, undocumented by any witnesses, allowed Darwin and his followers to fill it with their own theories about the origin and history life. This is the opposite of the Bible, which sets out a clearly documented record of the origin and history of life that has the authority of a witness who was there. Lyell's work gave Darwin the option of rejecting that authority and substituting it with his own, and Darwin took up the opportunity, as have all his and Lyell's followers, who want their thoughts and actions to be freed from the authority of the Creator.

Years later Darwin later confirmed that Lyell had indeed undermined the authority of Scripture. In 1873 Darwin wrote to his son George:

"Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the Deluge etc far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise" (Letter to George H Darwin, 21 Oct 1873)

By shaking faith in the Deluge, i.e. Noah's flood, Darwin, Lyell and their present day followers were, and are, not just rejecting God's power as Creator, they reject His power and authority as judge.

Ultimately, Darwin's grief over his daughter"s death was just one more step on an already well established path away from God.


http://askjohnmackay.com...

Lyell was a lawyer and he knew that no separation exists between religion or philosophy, and the way people study the world around them, i.e. science. By advising his followers to reject and replace Moses, Lyell was actually establishing an alternative world history where the authority of the God of Moses over the real world of rocks, fossils and living things, was ultimately rejected....

Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that this is what actually happened to Charles Darwin, one of Lyell's most devoted disciples. It was only after Darwin took on Lyell's world view of vast geologic ages that he could work out his own theory of evolutionary biology. In his book On the Origin of Species, which sets out his theory of evolution, Darwin describes his complete dependence on Lyell's work.

"He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology, which the future historian will recognise as having produced a revolution in natural science, yet does not admit how incomprehensibly vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume." Darwin, 1859, Origin, Ch IX, p282

A vast incomprehensible past, undocumented by any witnesses, allowed Darwin to fill it with his own theories about the origin of life, and of new and different life forms....


http://askjohnmackay.com...

So, history can give a glimpse of how worldviews come into being and what fuels them and how they build. Understanding the great influences in a person's life can give an understanding of what helps them shape the way they look at the world.

Darwin was not a Christian. His early life was influenced by Christianity but his later life adopted a naturalistic framework for life.

Peter

He was a christian to begin with but after reading Wikipedia, i do have to agree with you that he did loose his faith in the Christian doctrine. The scientific doctrine however is not one that was established to overthrow christianity (or God). It is a doctrine with the purpose to explain the world through reason and to build that reason on a foundation on observable evidence. It is a method that would have acted to affirm the truth of the Bible and Religion if not for the fact that the Bible and Religion were not dealing in the truth. One can argue after all that a universe created by God would have had a foundation to affirm God as being the creator, which is the assumption that the earliest scientists made. Ironically, this foundation is not disproven or discounted by science (though there are Atheists who say that there is no evidence of such a foundation). What science does do however is to disprove the validity of those religions that are using God for their own ungodly purposes.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 12:34:26 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
It is unfortunate really, instead of adapting to the truths of the world by embracing evolution as a part of religion, relgion chose instead to distance itself from those truths which has put it on a path of ultimate self-destruction unless it still manages to adapt itself. The irony is is that evolution does not at all discount the existence of God but by taking the stance that religion has, God will end up being discounted.

Of course it can be said that it's not the religious establishment that has rejected Darwinism. As I see it the 'official line' of the main western religions is a form of 'theistic evolution' that is far removed from creationism and is a very diluted form of ID. The official line is 'accomodationist'.

Let me suggest Creationism (and its tactical disguise ID) is not about evolution. Evolution is only the battle ground. The goal of creationism is not to change the school curriculum but political power.

I don't mean that there will be a 'Creationist party' alongide the Republicans and Democrats. What I mean is that if the creationists win they will have succeeded in changing the mind-set of politicians and the public so what matters when it comes to passing laws and framing policy is not what is true or what the facts are or what i best for people but what is compatible with religious dogma.

I am not suggeting everyone who is sympathetic to creationism and ID secretly craves to turn the US into a theocracy - most of them are footsoldiers and cannon-fodder. But I don't think the creationist will acheive a minor change in the school curriculum and stop there. Creationist big-wigs aren't running institutes and opening museums for such limited aims, significant though the curriculum is.

What I say to opponents of evolution is to be careful for what you wish for - you might get it.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 653
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:51:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 2:28:56 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:34:26 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
It is unfortunate really, instead of adapting to the truths of the world by embracing evolution as a part of religion, relgion chose instead to distance itself from those truths which has put it on a path of ultimate self-destruction unless it still manages to adapt itself. The irony is is that evolution does not at all discount the existence of God but by taking the stance that religion has, God will end up being discounted.

Of course it can be said that it's not the religious establishment that has rejected Darwinism. As I see it the 'official line' of the main western religions is a form of 'theistic evolution' that is far removed from creationism and is a very diluted form of ID. The official line is 'accomodationist'.


The problem however is that they are simply "avoiding" the issue in the fear that making a stand on it (either in favour or against) will be the end of them. The result is that no Christian really knows in what corner to stand on this issue thereby leaving it open for abuse by those who would want to use the Christian faith for their own perverted purposes.


Let me suggest Creationism (and its tactical disguise ID) is not about evolution. Evolution is only the battle ground. The goal of creationism is not to change the school curriculum but political power.

I don't mean that there will be a 'Creationist party' alongide the Republicans and Democrats. What I mean is that if the creationists win they will have succeeded in changing the mind-set of politicians and the public so what matters when it comes to passing laws and framing policy is not what is true or what the facts are or what i best for people but what is compatible with religious dogma.


You are of course absolutely right about that. This has been going on from the day that religion was invented. Religion has always been a favorite "blunt" weapon to get people to follow policies and ideas that they would otherwise reject. Many wars for instance have been fought with the consent and support of the people because it was sold to them under the guise of religion.


I am not suggeting everyone who is sympathetic to creationism and ID secretly craves to turn the US into a theocracy - most of them are footsoldiers and cannon-fodder. But I don't think the creationist will acheive a minor change in the school curriculum and stop there. Creationist big-wigs aren't running institutes and opening museums for such limited aims, significant though the curriculum is.

What I say to opponents of evolution is to be careful for what you wish for - you might get it.

Indeed, as i pointed out to a Theist who had a rant against Putin for being anti-Christian. If Putin had been a christian, he would have been the first to follow him as Putin does all those things that he wants, such as outlawing homosexuality.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 3:10:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 1:24:30 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/5/2016 12:31:58 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
My contention is that the Age of Reason started a paradigm shift in worldviews that Darwin was more responsible for than any other person in steering science away from a religious worldview. It gave the reason that scientists thought was necessary to separate science from religion (Evolution and Natural Selection). Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin's Bulldog, helped promote his views and make them publically known.

Perhaps my repsonse is a bit off-topic, but i got a feeling that the current rift between science and religion is not because of science trying to disprove religion (far from it, science is not interested in religion, it is interested about facts), but because of religion trying to ridecule science in order to justify their own believes which do not rhime with what science has found. Evolution versus Creationism is a great example of this.

Science was a replacement for God.

Odd that you own a computer, internet connection and are posting on these forums, all the result of science. Why aren't you living in a cave without all the modern conveniences science has provided you, Peter?

Don't you think your comment is rather hypocritical?

He was no longer needed in the minds of those who disliked or opposed the biblical message. I look upon it as the break the intellectual elite and the rebellious needed to be done with God for good. They could become the measure of all things, their own gods, governed by the imaginations of their own minds.

Peter
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 5:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 6:43:10 AM, PGA wrote:
How does this something you proposed have agency and intent? How does a blind, indifferent, illogical, non-thinking, random, chance happenstance do these things? You apparently think "it" can.

My solution is that bacteria are designed to function within certain boundaries by God. They can mutate to a certain degree and no further. They are still the bacterium.

How does a complex information system such as DNA come together by random chance happenstance? That is your assumption, not mine.

The engine of evolutionary change is mutations. Natural selection selects those changes that are better for survival. Mutations that create useful new abilities are better for survival than those that don't.

We have already seen bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. Disgesting something requires a very specific protein that breaks down a compound in specific atomic location and into the right sub-compounds that can be used for energy. We have also seen bacteria evolve to be multi-cellular.

Over a small period of time we will see some complex abilities evolve. Over billions of years we will see a lot.

It is impossible to prove that evolution evolved everything because of our short timespan and lack of understanding of DNA but at least I can refute your arguments that it is impossible.

I can then present evidence for evolution from DNA, vestigial organs, and the fossil record.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/5/2016 5:14:14 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/5/2016 6:43:10 AM, PGA wrote:
How does this something you proposed have agency and intent? How does a blind, indifferent, illogical, non-thinking, random, chance happenstance do these things? You apparently think "it" can.

My solution is that bacteria are designed to function within certain boundaries by God. They can mutate to a certain degree and no further. They are still the bacterium.

How does a complex information system such as DNA come together by random chance happenstance? That is your assumption, not mine.

The engine of evolutionary change is mutations. Natural selection selects those changes that are better for survival. Mutations that create useful new abilities are better for survival than those that don't.

Engine, what engine?

Where have you ever seen a beneficial mutation?

Natural selection selects nothing. Stop giving it human characteristics. There is no intent in it. With Natural selection things just randomly happen. What survives is then deemed by evolutionists as superior to what does not for the very reason that it survived.

We have already seen bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. Disgesting something requires a very specific protein that breaks down a compound in specific atomic location and into the right sub-compounds that can be used for energy. We have also seen bacteria evolve to be multi-cellular.

Bacteria is still bacteria. Where is this change to another species?

Over a small period of time we will see some complex abilities evolve. Over billions of years we will see a lot.

Your assumption based on how you interpret the evidence.

It is impossible to prove that evolution evolved everything because of our short timespan and lack of understanding of DNA but at least I can refute your arguments that it is impossible.

You have not refuted anything. DNA is choked full of information, information that has no informational source, no way of sustaining its uniformity unless God exists. Things just don't happen and continue to happen in the same manner without a reason indefinitely. Yet, you look for a reason and you give all kinds of reasons - you, a mindful being.

I can then present evidence for evolution from DNA, vestigial organs, and the fossil record.

DNA shows information and complexity. There is no reason from your worldview origins that such complexity can come about and then sustain itself. You step into the domain of Christianity when you offer a reason.

Peter